Live data from Hacker News

Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

twitter.com

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#21
post #14

Isn't the entire point of the term ecmascript created to resolve this?

It prevents Oracle from suing, but everybody calls it JavaScript anyway...

And the fact Oracle didn't sue for trademark infringement on that or TypeScript which is often referred to as JavaScript is probably not going to help Oracle here. But I doubt Oracle cares either way.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#22
post #7

I expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…

(Not a lawyer.) To have rights to a trademark, you have to use it in, well, trade. It’s not enough for a term to refer to a specific thing in normal usage, you must have a widely recognized claim on that thing. It should be in the customer’s interest that your thing not be confusable with thing-alikes that others may offer, specifically by having an exclusive right to be sold as the thing. And Oracle demonstrably doe…

(Also not a lawyer)

This is why I think Deno has a solid chance here. Sun may have filed for the trademark, but it’s not clear to me how much it has been used by Oracle. I also think this is why this step is likely the beginning of litigation, not the end. With Oracle not voluntarily withdrawing the trademark, it allows the rest of the process to invalidate the trademark to begin.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#23
post #7

I expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…

(Not a lawyer.) To have rights to a trademark, you have to use it in, well, trade. It’s not enough for a term to refer to a specific thing in normal usage, you must have a widely recognized claim on that thing. It should be in the customer’s interest that your thing not be confusable with thing-alikes that others may offer, specifically by having an exclusive right to be sold as the thing. And Oracle demonstrably doe…

The only JavaScript offering from Oracle that I know of is GraalVM[0]. It's funny though - they use "JavaScript" and "ECMAScript" interchangeably in their docs. They call it "A high-performance embeddable JavaScript runtime for Java" but then tout it as "ECMAScript Compliant", basically acknowledging that JavaScript is defined by ECMAScript specs and the terms mean the same thing.

[0] https://www.graalvm.org/javascript/

(Not a lawyer, just a nerd observing terminology)

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And though Sun was undeniably more worthy of sympathy than Oracle is, Sun’s original claim on the trademark seems just as bogus as Oracle’s current one.

Maybe. I'm not a lawyer, let alone an IP lawyer, but Netscape creating a programming language called "JavaScript" seems like the kind of thing that would be likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. Netscape explicitly chose the name to latch on to the popularity of Java at the time. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Sun of 1997 to want to protect their interest in the Java name by licensing it to Netsca…

I mean, yes, it’s a reasonable thing for Sun to want, but I (also not a lawyer) don’t see how it’s within the USPTO’s purview to grant. Sun/Oracle can claim others’ use of “JavaScript” is confusing others with regard to what “Java” is—indeed as you say this seems to have been Netscape’s explicit intent with the name—but that means Sun/Oracle may have some control over the use of the term “JavaScript” through their very real dealings in Java, not their nonexistent ones in JavaScript. You don’t get to squat trademarks, you have to use them. (Unless you have enough money to outlast any challenger in a legal battle. I guess we’ll see how that goes.)

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#28
post #7

I expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…

(Not a lawyer.) To have rights to a trademark, you have to use it in, well, trade. It’s not enough for a term to refer to a specific thing in normal usage, you must have a widely recognized claim on that thing. It should be in the customer’s interest that your thing not be confusable with thing-alikes that others may offer, specifically by having an exclusive right to be sold as the thing. And Oracle demonstrably doe…

Not only that, but other company's not-technically-javascript products are widely known as JavaScript. And have been for close to 3 decades now (Microsoft's JScript was released in 1996)

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#29
post #7

I expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…

> On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark.

It seems to me that it's the exact opposite of that: It's been so thoroughly genericised that it might as well not exist as a trademark. Also, I couldn't even tell you of a single product Oracle sells that uses the mark.

Re: Oracle Will Not Voluntarily Withdraw JavaScript Trademark

#30
post #7

I expect that this was the predicted outcome? And that all we are seeing here is the beginning of the process, rather than the end? On the face of it, JavaScript seems like a pretty solid trademark. But, to me, it’s really not clear how much control Oracle has asserted over it…

(Not a lawyer.) To have rights to a trademark, you have to use it in, well, trade. It’s not enough for a term to refer to a specific thing in normal usage, you must have a widely recognized claim on that thing. It should be in the customer’s interest that your thing not be confusable with thing-alikes that others may offer, specifically by having an exclusive right to be sold as the thing. And Oracle demonstrably doe…

Haha yeah, in my experience, they use less JavaScript than most tech companies out there.

Their image is very enterprisey, so Java, C... You don't think of JavaScript when you think of Oracle.

Post reply on HN